Is it coincidence that dictatorship is the common outcome of US failures in international relations, asks Ayman El-Amir* The 20th century has thrown the remnants of its multifarious conflicts into the 21st, which in turn added its own blend of disasters, so much so that it is difficult now to identify one region of the world that is conflict- free. Despite common root causes, conflicts reflect as many different motives as their number. There is no indication yet of any present low-intensity conflict turning into a major conflagration. However, the world is moving inexorably away from the tradition of liberalism towards ideological and political despotism. One potential consequence is the rise of more autocratic than democratic regimes in the second decade of the current century. This will invite more violent resistance and associated instability. In the 1950s and 1960s, two-thirds of the world's countries were riding on the crest of the struggle against colonialism, for independence and national sovereignty. It was an ideologically and politically unified struggle, with clear and indisputable objectives. However, consistent principles did not govern subsequent efforts towards economic and political development. As old monarchies held on to power in a world of roller-coaster developments, the Cold War confrontation between the two superpowers -- the United States and the former Soviet Union -- shaped the post-independence agendas of most of the newly- independent states, gradually undermining the momentum generated by the rising Non-Aligned Movement. With few exceptions, the heroes of national liberation became symbols of failed political and economic development. Only Mualimo Julius Nyrere of Tanzania admitted that his economic development policies were a disaster and abdicated power. In another rare and more recent exception, a military junta that overthrew a failed dictatorship in Mauritania in 2005 kept its word and, one year later, turned government over to civilian rule by elected representatives. Almost all other leaders clung to power through a system of one-party dictatorship. Government-by- repression became a model of legitimacy perpetuated by fraudulent elections, negation of the rule of law and violations of human rights. In most developing countries, military dictatorships put on business suits and called themselves democracies. But the suppressed masses were not duped. In multi-ethnic Africa, dictatorship led to failed economic and political development and poverty, which in turn ignited civil strife and, in some cases like Rwanda, genocide. Change of government was realised only by one ethnically based group or coalition staging a military coup against the dictatorship in power. This was the dominant model of government in Nigeria during the 1980s. Manipulation of ethnicity by ambitious politicians in order to gain power and monopolise wealth was the hallmark of the long and tragic post- independence civil wars in Angola, Mozambique and Somalia. Political contenders in Kenya have triggered long-dormant ethnic rivalries between their respective Kikuyu and Luo tribes and sub-tribes to settle election results between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga -- a clash that has so far claimed nearly 1,000 lives. In Chad, a coalition of armed opposition is in the process of ousting President Idriss Deby whose 17-year-old rule of one of the world's least developed countries has given rise to armed rebellion. Since its independence in 1960, change of presidents in Chad has only been attained by military coups. The discovery of petroleum in the impoverished country three years ago will incite more violent rivalries in a land of weak political institutions. Darfur is another humanitarian crisis where neglect of development gave rise to ethnic violence and political chaos. And in the Congo, where Africa's most vicious civil war was fought between 1998 and 2003, resulting in more than 4.5 million casualties, political ambition is fanning the flames of renewed ethnic conflict. For the second time in less than two decades, civil strife in Somalia has turned the country into a large-scale humanitarian disaster. In its global war on terrorism, the US is using the good (military) offices of Ethiopia, an arch-enemy of Somalia, to fight back the forces of the Islamic Courts which it believes are linked to Al-Qaeda. From Chad to Chechnya and from Sudan to Sri Lanka civil conflicts rage on, with little effective international mediation or efforts towards national reconciliation. After the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1990, the US's uncharted strategy of becoming the world's sole and unchallenged superpower has backfired. Its misguided foreign policy behaviour has earned it more enemies than friends, particularly during the administration of George W Bush. President Bush's pseudo- quixotic war on terrorism, now in its seventh year, continues unabated but remains short of ultimate victory. By adding Palestinian armed resistance against Israeli military occupation to his list of terrorist enemies, President Bush has confused the agenda, widened the conflict and alienated most people in the Middle East. His enemies of choice, Iran and Syria, and national resistance movements such as Hamas and Hizbullah, do not seem to have been vanquished despite all US and Israeli threats and punitive actions. With "all the king's horses and all the king's men" mobilised, the US and its NATO allies are not winning the crusade against the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, while in Pakistan the US's staunchest ally in the fight against terrorism, President Pervez Musharraf, is in political trouble. US destruction of Iraq in the name of fostering democratic ideals will be added to the disgraceful and inhuman record of 18th century colonialism. In a recent survey, the British polling agency ORB has estimated that more than one million Iraqis have been killed since the Anglo-American invasion in 2003. This sounds like a shocking figure, but shock has lost its meaning and impact in devastated Iraq, and for the remainder of its terrorised population. By invading and destroying Iraq, by its threatening military presence in seven countries of the region, its blind support for Israeli massacres of the Palestinians, and by its losing confrontation with Iran, the US is fostering not democratic ideals but mounting anti-American militancy. When this is added to US support for "moderate" autocratic rulers in the region a lethal potion is created whereby the distinction between nationalist resistance and raw terrorism is increasingly blurred. The US is playing Russian roulette in the Middle East and Gulf region. On the back of disaster, we are entering a new era of instability. Russia, which only a decade ago brought the world's financial markets to near collapse when it defaulted on its debt repayment, is returning to the international foray with renewed self-confidence. But it is facing long-term challenges in its own backyard, Chechnya, and from some of its closest allies that were once an integral part of the Soviet empire, including Georgia, the Ukraine and Belarus. Not all member republics of the former Soviet Union adopted the ideals of democracy when they broke away. And Russia itself has its own recipe for democracy, which is breeding internal dissent and raising Western doubts, especially when it comes to freedom of the press. On the other hand, China is quietly building itself into a superpower of the 21st century. The 20th century phenomenon of two superpowers controlling the world has given way to a multi-polar world of economic competitiveness and political vulnerabilities. During nearly two decades of absolute global supremacy, the US has struck out in the management of international relations. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and by narrowly defining a complex world into "those who are not with us are against us", the US, particularly under the two-term disastrous administration of George W Bush, is leaving the world worse off than it was when it came unchallenged to the helm. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and its ramifications, including in the Middle East, has not created an oasis of stable democracy. What it did is add more conflicts and exacerbate unsettled ones because it gave the US a free hand to reshape the global scene in its own interest and to undermine the United Nations by way of blind alliances and by undermining the United Nations -- a time-honoured target of Republicans who covert power over the delegated shared destiny of multilateralism. A conflict-riddled new world is looming on the horizon, which will strengthen entrenched autocracies and generate new ones. It seems that soon even dictatorship will gain an air of respectability, given widespread suppression of alternatives. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
